The Problem With Agnosticism

A Letter to a Florida Friend

by Frank Savell

The definition of agnosticism would go something like this: It is a way of thinking where a person after being exposed to the cases for and against a Divine Being who created the universe we live in, and has some kind of relationship with the inhabitants of this earth. (something around 6 billion). Folks with scientific bents and backgrounds are very inclined to think that what we see around us can all be explained by science. Naturally, this would lead to the idea that there was nothing before our existence, and nothing after, when we pass on. Some cling to the idea that there was a big bang (and I believe this to be true and one of God's tools) and that all we see in our universe just "happened" without an author, and that all matter and living things we observe on earth evolved from some primordial ooze, and developed based on the need of that particular species. Ex. it needed eyes, and therefore eyes developed. It needed to see in stereo, and therefore two eyes developed. One of the problems of evolution vs. creationism, is that with evolution there was no apparent reason, or motive for the thing to happen in the first place. Why couldn't it simply be that there was no universe, nothingness, and that was forever.

There is a book by Dean L. Overman "A case Against ACCIDENT and SELF-ORGANIZATION". One reviewer wrote: "Dean Overman's work is particularly valuable in the way it begins with a discussion of logic to establish that the fundamental issues are ultimately metaphysical. He proceeds to show, in a cogent and lucid way, that based on our latest understanding of modern physics, the universe is 'finely tuned universe...that belief rests on faith' rather than science." Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University.

I read this book years ago in 1992, and basically, the author sets out to prove the universe was just a happy accident of physics, and he being a scientific type applied Probability & Statistics to the events following the big bang. Towards the end of writing this book his conclusion was that it all could not have happened by accident, that there is evidence in his theories to substantiate that there is a creator, a person, behind it with a design plan. He never once in his writing ever call the creator, God.

Now there are documents called the Dead Sea Scrolls, which you might say are simply diaries written by folks who lived in the day. These eventually were transcribed into what we in modern times call the Bible. Think about how, if you were a witness in those days, and you wrote what you observed, but several thousand years have passed. Now there are folks who don't believe what was written, that, merely because of the passage of time. But... you earnestly wrote down what you observed, and can't believe people would not believe you later. What was my motivation. Certainly you are not lying. Why would you write this stuff down, and lie about what you witnessed. What would be your motivation? There are things in the Old Testament that describe how man worshipped God in the Temple. And before the physical temple was built, it was common for worship to be held in the Tent of Meeting in the desert. At that time, God appeared as fire, and was communicating directly to His worshippers audibly. Image that. If you were there then, no one would have to convince you that you were in direct communication with the awesome God, and creator of the universe. Of course, in those days, they had no inkling about any Big Bang theory. Today, God chooses to communicate with us through the power of the Holy Spirit. Can you imagine communicating with a bandwidth enough to carry 6 billion channels!

It would seem to me that agnosticism has behind it, a bit of CYA. If I don't know what I believe, you can't hold me accountable for my behavior. Unfortunately, this idea won't get one off-the-hook. We have a human lifetime to make up our mind as to what we believe. I can remember as a child at Harwich Port on Cape Cod, where my Aunt and Uncle had a cottage and I used to spend whole summers there. I can remember as early as 6 or 7 years old, as my fingers sifted sand on the beach one early morning, fascinated by all the marine life that used to hang around the jetties there. I can remember a time or two when I pondered something rather profound:

Why am I me? Why is it that my only perception of the world, is only through MY set of eyes and ears. It was as if in my own little language that I was expressing what I observed as my unique soul. I wondered without using those words, as to why the situation existed!

Much later in life(age 53), it occurred to me that this soul was a permanent situation, and that I'm wearing this body for a relatively short time, and that God, before I even existed, had created a soul for me, planting this soul in my body at the time of birth. I guess this is why I so readily accept the fact, that not only does God love me as an individual, but He wishes to relate to me, through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is something that is confirmed at the time one accepts Jesus (who died on the cross for our sin, a spotless lamb) as having died for my sin, and the Holy Spirit rather physically takes up residence within one's body. This is not just a figure of speech. Most folks who experience this say that they feel a presence in their chest area, and rises and falls of the feeling are often indications guiding ones actions in life.

It's been long time since that first experience I had on the beach, but now realize that although the earth's population is huge, it is really evident to me that what God wants is not that you just believe in Him, but that he wants a relationship with all His children.

If you are an agnostic, I would suggest that you get off the dime, do your homework, and convince yourself one way or the other, not only about a Divine Creator, but that he desires to have a relationship with His children. You have only what's left of your lifetime to decide, since after that it is too late, and you will have decided to live apart from God by default, if you don't make a concrete decision.

Back in the days before Jesus' death, (Leviticus) innocent animals were slaughtered and their blood spilt on the sides of the altar by the chief priests. It was an awful drudge, because week after week folks brought their animals for slaughter. Why their blood? In God's eyes, blood was the way to atone for one's sin. But we need to be holy if we are to have a relationship with a Holy God. God sees us as holy if we accept his son, the spotless lamb, as covering our sin, so that God can no longer see our sinfulness. Plan B, was that if He sent His son to earth (conceived by the Holy Spirit) the sinfulness of mankind would not be passed down to Mary from previous generations. Hanging Jesus on a cross and shedding his blood, is a perfect atonement for all mankind permanently. But, one needs to accept Jesus' sacrifice personally, in order that you may be in direct relationship to a Holy God. Does this sound like science fiction?? It took me 53 years to really understand the whole concept, and become born-again (as in John 3:16)

And, my friend, the above is what is the problem with agnosticism. It leaves you without salvation!!